Amal Clooney at Meet the Press on NBC with Chuck Todd 17.01.2016

Amal Clooney talks about her latest legal battle for former president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, in an exclusive Meet the Press interview with Chuck Todd. She explains also that she has taken on the case of a female journalist in Azerbaijan who has been jailed for exposing evidence of corruption by the regime.

These Vintage Givenchy large pearl earrings with beautiful gold toned twisted detailing will quickly become the go-to earrings in your jewelry box. These earrings are stamped with the Givenchy logo as proof of authenticity

83 thoughts on “Amal Clooney at Meet the Press on NBC with Chuck Todd 17.01.2016”

She is beautiful, it is sad that one of them will write a bad comment about her soon. maybe he/she is now writting the comment ☹ anyway I hope you lose the wifi right before you press post … and you get angry , broke your phone into small pieces . And it turned that your comment was sent but Nati don’t post it so you are sad . Excuse my language

Sorry bla. This was not o.k., but i was a little bit mad about your comment. Everybody has the right of hers/his own opinion. But my behavior was not correct. Please answer, whether you accept my apologies. I would be glad.

Wow. I don’t usually make partisan comments on the content of Amal’s work, but since it is not at all legal I will not be so cautious. I have to do a double take here – did she seriously just suggest that the US should boycott and place sanctions on another country because that country does not share “American values”, and furthermore since it is a major recruiting ground for ISIS? That is a very cheap shot, since it is well known that individuals across Europe have also gone to join ISIS. It is a complex issue. We do not fully understand why so many join ISIS, and if Amal does I would like to see her evidence before she instructs the most powerful state in the world to initiate sanctions against another. The ISIS issue is very delicate – it should not be used as a scaremongering tactic.

Sanctions and boycotts themselves are hugely controversial. They disproportionately affect individuals within the country – the people of the Maldives who depend on the tourism sector will face hardship as a consequence, and there is no evidence that sanctions will lead to a change in regime. In fact it may only increase animosity towards the US and compel more people to join ISIS (if that’s her argument!). Or just reduce the general standard of living for ordinary people. I found her first interview to be shallow – but I preferred the first interview. This second interview is simply naive, irresponsible, and beggars belief.

Amal is entitled to her views. But to use her celebrity status to advocate for such drastic policies against other nation states, policies which are controversial, seem to lack a robust evidence base, and require careful consideration, makes me deeply uncomfortable.

Exactly right Lady.
But this has to be considered too:
The Americans, who caused this desaster, will take perhaps 10.000 refugees from Syria and we here in Germany have to handle with 1 Million human beings within one year. We all have to help these poor people, but one nation cannot scope with this gigantic task alone.

I totally agree that the burden shared by Europe (except for the U.K.) for the refugee crisis is disproportionate to the role that Europe played in the destruction of Iraq. The U.S. should be taking more refugees from Iraq/Syria, as should the U.K., as Tony Blair played a strongly supportive role in the Bush/Cheney destruction of Iraq, as well.

I continue to hope that the current refugee crisis will be used as an example for why military “solutions” never work. This should be a point that European leaders bring up the next time an American administration tries to convince them of the “necessity” of an illegal and unjust military intervention in another country.

Completely agree with ESR. The fiasco with the Egyptian authorities was one thing, but suggesting that an impoverished country sinking under the water should have ‘targeted sanctions’ imposed on it because 1) American values are at stake, and 2) ISIS is recruiting from there, is naive at best and dangerous at worst. What are ‘US values’? Who defines these values, and why is that a sound basis for imposing sanctions on another country? On what basis are the ‘targeted’ individuals selected if, as she notes, members of the government themselves are being persecuted? This is not to mention the glaring point about the disproportionate effect boycotts will have on the ordinary people of the country. Such political strategies are not for foreign lawyers to dream up but for indigenous political players – parties, activists and ordinary people to lead and advocate.

So true Hannah. Amal’s comments were naive, almost juvenile, and completely unaware. I think it might be wise for her to stay off of TV and not request/volunteer herself for air time. It’s making her less smart. Unsung heroes, charitable people, people who are passionate, etc. tend to do their work not expecting or seeking recognition, world notice, or air time. Perhaps she should stick to business, do what she is trained to do, be professional and carry out her job. Rather than looking silly by using her new celebrity title through George for easier access to TV spotlight. She sounded very silly and rehearsed with the “sanctions”, “statistics” “per capita reports” “sham reports” and “American values are at stake”. Obviously coming from a non-American, ill informed, & naive position. I highly doubt she will get any future air time on TV with these types of silly notions. Amal is trying way too hard for this eager celebrity recognition by throwing herself on TV, all set up by people who know people who know people. There are fantastic attorneys/barristers nationwide and worldwide who do great heroic jobs as human rights lawyers. Amal should humble herself and become far greater seasoned. Also, it was as if she was trying to put this “guilt trip” on all of us by saying, “so while you are sunbathing at this resort, 1 km. away is….”. And 1 km. away while you are on a fun safari in Africa, poachers are killing elephants and trophy hunting. And while you are wearing snakeskinGucci shoes and real genuine fox fur and other real furs…1 km away…… And while you are wearing genuine black horse hair boots, 1 km. away…..
Her TV time made her look ridiculous for those of us who have followed her all along. She sounded like an uneducated, inexperienced, naive person grasping on to fame to catapult her to personal gain & recognition. Again, she should do her job and do it well. In doing so, she is far better off. Americans have laughed her off with her silly comments and have found her to be lacking true competence. Lovely selection of professional outfits for TV, however–cream dress and green dress.

Once again, brilliant comment ESR. “American values are at stake”. Amal is completely wrong about this. Chuck Todd (the host) even said, “why should this be America’s problem?” Also, she got about 5 minutes on Meet the Press. I watched it. It must have been severely edited. 95% of the show was on the upcoming election & presidential campaign, as it usually is. And it appears they plugged Amal in for the last 5 minutes of the show. It’s the absolute least topic of interest (the Maldives) in the minds of the Americans. In all truth and reality. Amal should probably stick to business & focus on how she and her team can legally help her client. Using her celebrity status in hopes of probing the Americans to assist her in her fight will probably prove to be a fail. She might be a bit naive or full hearty in what she thinks she can achieve in Washington DC.

WOW!! What the heck happened to you Jacklyn!!?? you sound just like Jon321!! I am sure she never left this blog, and is just disguised Why so negative, so sure of what you think as if it was true! Chill out!! Such a conspiracy theory!! Oulala!!!

I am absolutely with you ESR, not only is this not correct practise of Law by a barrister claiming to be wearing her ‘lawyer representing an individual client’ hat, also it is an abuse of the “celebrity” she claims to eschew yet, in the following breath, claims to be using “responsibly” at the same time. Square THAT circle.

She talks targeted sanctions, yet must know they have negative trickle down on an already beleaguered population. She stops short of an outright call for a tourism ban yet, mendacious and craven, exploits this PR opportunity to imply the only ‘ethical right’ in this is to boycott leisure travel to a nation where the population relies almost solely for their economic well being on tourism. Not failing to obliquely plug Virgin in the process, naturally. Let’s await the Clooney’s enjoying Necker Island soon, if they haven’t done so already.

As to the logic that further destabilising a nation will be helpful in targeting and reducing Daesh fomenting, recruitment, and radicalisation, this runs counter to most understanding of how or why people do become open to Daesh thinking. On the one hand she appeals to a furtherance of ‘American values’ by IMPOSITION of harmful sanctions and implied tourist boycott thereby hurting ordinary Maldivians; and on the other fails to acknowledge that such IMPOSITION by Western $ might is a significant pull/puss factor towards further Daesh involvement for many of the young and dissafected.

And, taking her position, as now very publicly outlined, she is, in effect, using her platform – gained through Hollywood – to rabble rouse for: 1/ destabilisation of a nation; 2/ that such destabilisation, by implication, result in the overthrow of a Government considered by the Commonwealth, UN, other bodies, to have been DEMOCRATICALLY elected – a ‘coup’ by sanctions; and 3/ elevate her client, who lost the DEMOCRATICALLY election, to heroic (despite Amnesty even question aspects of his term in office) pole position to fill the vacuum her plan for crippling the Maldives might create.

The full extension of her ‘logic’ is, in effect, a cry for make a fraught situation worse the release her client as an ‘antidote’. It’s not far off a call for regime change by celebrity.

Wherein is the fair and reasoned practise of Law?

This coming from Genser would still have been flawed but he is a spokesperson for a legitimate campaign group. She is not, nor ought she to be in her current capacity as a lawyer, without even jurisdiction in the Maldives, to a private client.

Thanks, ESR, for your input which, I know from past posts of yours, is entirely and always objective, intelligence and knowledge based.

I am seriously astonished that a professional chamber thinks this is a good way to present a case. It reeks of a bad Hollywood movie script that hasn’t the first clue about the very complex and dangerous underlying issues involved here, and has instead just looked for the sensation soundbites that will get it media coverage.

Brilliant comment ESR! I always love reading your views on here! So true…her approach is bizarre. I’m guessing perhaps she just followed what her media advisers said she should say – I believe every statement she made was fully scripted.

Of course, love the clothes and great work Nati on tracking down the earrings! They are gorgeous.

I don´t think she should be critisized so poignantly,I think she is a lawyer doing her job; she´s defending her client Nasheed and just arguing her case and using what ever data she might find to support her claim for her client to be released, simple as that. She´s trying to appeal to the US to join in to put pressure on the Maldives government and finally release her client. This is a speech for the defense and as you know the defense tries to pull every possible string to get to where it is aiming to get; releasing the client. I think this is normal procedure in cases involving violations of human rights.

As to her clothing; I think those ankle boots are the epitome of winter beauty, those shoes are sooooo beautiful, simple and stylish, simply gorgeous! I think Amal´s outfit is very serene, stylish and with the dress made of wool and those boots it is both climate and occasion appropriate. I think she´s spot on on her choice of clothing.

I must strenuously disagree. Nobody should go away thinking this is a lawyer ‘doing her job’. There are very strict rules on how lawyers and courts can operate, and the defence absolutely cannot ‘pull every possible string’ to get their client released. There is also a stringent code of ethics – the first being that a lawyer cannot pick and choose their cases. They must take whatever case comes. Another is that barristers must always maintain their indepnedence. They mustn’t mislead. They must not do anything which brings the profession into disrepute.

I don’t believe her argument on sanctions or ISIS supports her claim that her client was wrongly inprisoned. This is not what lawyers do – lawyers turn up in court, they stick to the matters in issue, they tender evidence with an eye on what is admissible, they absolutely do not discuss ongoing cases in the media. Why is Amal doing all this? Because she is not Nasheed’s lawyer in the sense that she is projecting. She has no right of audience in the courts of the Maldives, and as far as I am aware there are no international proceedings where she could possibly represent him. She has simply been hired to bring publicity to his case, and has taken it upon herself to start advising the US government on their foreign policy. And, in my view, her recommendations are wholly inappropriate and irresponsible.

I am so totally fascinated by Amal Clooney. She is naturally beautiful, smart, educated, well-dressed, classy, and she’s contributing to society in a major way with her obviously outstanding skills. Plus, she’s married to one of my all-time favorite actors!

What I’m liking most about the more professional looking Amal is that she is using her celebrity to leverage and bring attention to important topics! Example being, the pressure placed on the Maldivian government to allow former president Nasheed to travel to Europe for back surgery.
I say more professional because I believe she is trying to revamp her image and I think has been reading this blog extensively and is heeding the advice we have all given her to tone down the celebrity lifestyle . I applaud you Amal for your hard work and the brains to come to the realization that you now have a powerful role in society and can use it for good. You are setting a great example by showing that those in the public eye CAN and SHOULD set an example and make a difference . Bravo Amal! You have made us working ladies proud!

New year, great Posts! Thank you Nati for your great work and dedication to this blog!

Before I start writing my opinion on Amal, let me say “thumbs up” for Jared Genser! He is so cute and always smiling on the pics! I am sure he is a nice colleague to work with. Ok…now it is Amal’s turn:

1. Fashion: Even if I like the clothes Amal wore during her meetings, I don’t fully agree with her decisions. As a lawyer myself, I cannot imagine going to an (important) meeting without wearing a blazer. Surely professional clothing varies in each country, but in Germany, where I am located, it is impossible and looks very unprofessional to go to an important meeting or TV show in a dress only. The green and the white dress are really nice, but in my opinion better for other occasions. This is why I prefer the D&G blazer and the grey one.

2. Amal’s work: I have to agree with ESR. We have to distinguish the job of a business law lawyer and the job of a human rights lawyer. In the first case you have to deal with the local law and jurisprudence. In the second case, Amal’s case, you have to travel around saying “please, please, please, set my client free!” Don’t understand me wrong, I don’t want to talk bad about her job, it is her choice anyway, but when she was asked how she deals with not having succeeded in all her cases (the question was somehow like that), she answered that if you want many won cases you have to deal with traffic law and rolled her eyes while saying that. She can afford it to work pro bono in her cases, I can’t, and I am sure many other lawyers can’t either. If you watch Amal’s interviews she is repeating the same things all the time without going deeper in the case. She can say 1000 times that Nasheed had a show trial like Fahmy, but where is the evidence on that? Her interviews sound weird to me, like she had memorized the texts, she always says the same. As already others said in their posts, Amal’s Job now is to make some pr in order to raise awareness on her cases. But actually this is not a lawyer’s job.

I hope I made my opinion clear. But since this is supposed to be a style blog, I will reduce my posts on that. However, I felt the need to write something on Amal’s work as well.

I agree GINI15. It was in poor taste to reference traffic law (as if it was so beneath her and minuscule). All aspects of law are important and for those lawyers out there, many on this blog, thank you for all of your tedious, endless hours that you dedicate to your profession and to all you do that is right and just and proper to bring credibility to the profession and by making a difference in the world. Thank you Gini15 and ESR and many others. You are appreciated. 🙂 🙂

Remember when she was selected as part of a committee for gaza and the violations and she declined and said she has too many cases? And she just took on another case . It’s obvious she won’t get close to the middle eastern conflict cases or it’s too much to handle or possibly dangerous. There are so so many illegally detained Arab officials in Iraq and Syria I wonder why she does t take those human rights violation cases? I am not saying she is not being cautious she has the right to. Just curious
She looks perfect here – hair teeth makeup and good for her – George is a lucky man

I was most pleasantly surprised by Ms. Clooney’s acquittal of her defense of the elected President of the Maldives. She is walking a tricky tightrope of appealing on humanitarian/political lines, and the human rights law as it applies to the International Court.
Her arguments, as such, were succinct and just: there is no opposition to the autocratic regime, even members of the the ruler’s own party have been jailed, and per capita, the number of ISIS followers and Sharia law adherents have exponentially multiplied. This is dangerous for the world as ISIS followers have no moral encumbrances where killing is concerned.
Her call for an targeted international boycott of the Maldives is inspired: it is the only way to get the attention of the autocrats: see Iran as as proof. Yes, innocent people will be hurt in the process, but maybe it will give them the will to resist . Unfortunately, innocent people are hurt in any fight–people will lose jobs if tourism declines, but maybe the plight of the country will be reinforced on the dictators. Maybe a groundswell of opposition will arise–it did in occupied France, India, Freedom Fighters in the U.S. South etc. etc.
The beginnings of overthrowing totalisianarism are always difficult; and we must recognize that democracy in its purest form is not right for every country. But the common laws of man say we should strive to have every person have their say.
I think Amal is conveying that message well, while maintaining dignity and facts.

My question is – which paternalist gets to decide that thousands of innocent people are required to suffer in order to sample the delights of our enlightened western values?

Iran is not proof of the effectiveness of sanctions. They have been in place since 1979! Maybe a groundswell of opposition will arise… The examples you mention all have other geopolitical factors which resulted in successful regime change. You saw where the groundswell of opposition led to in Syria. It is not so clear cut. Having once been a student of history, my view is that – unlike in law – causation is complex. Our knowledge is limited. And advocating as Amal has done, without sound evidence or theory as to why sanctions or boycotts would be effective, or that the people of the Maldives are happy to accept the drudgery, is deeply irresponsible.

I won’t even begin on what the Bar Standard Board’s code of conduct has to say on what she is doing here, since Amal is clearly acting in a personal capacity…

Some who have left comments here, probably from the comfort of their democratic countries, are naïve if they think a looney dictator will listen and follow international law. Of course Amal and the lawyers dealing with this case have sifted every available opportunity, but dictator are bullies and follow their own will to the expense of political opponents and their people.

Back in the 1970s Indonesia invaded East Timor and after years of oppression and a bloody massacre many countries, including Portugal, decided to boycott Indonesian products and repeatedly ran adds condemning those who would happily vacation in Bali.

After the intervention of the UN the island became free again. This is a different case but it goes to show that sometimes sanctions and travel bans have to be pushed forward… the only way the current Maldivian dictator will react is when his piggy bank is empty. I am pretty sure this will hurt the economy of the island but maybe people there will be more than happy to welcome back the president they elected than living in the dark ages of sharia law and extremism.

selene dione, they didn’t elect Nasheed last time he stood. He lost to the current president. The election has been termed completely democratic in its manner of holding and outcome. The president the people of the Maldives have now is the president they duly elected over Nasheed on the ballot as an option.

This is part of the problem with the way Amal Clooney is going about this and one many are highlighting. She, calculatedly or not, gives over or encourages false impressions people then take as gospel when they are not fact.

Samba, the Azerbaijani journalist’s own actual lawyers have gone on record today in confusion over Amal’s claim to be representing their client. The first they, or the woman herself, heard of this was via Amal’s TV interview. She jumped the gun as, although she has now apparently made an offer to represent the journalist, no agreement for her to do so has been reached as yet. Another example of a false impression given by Amal.

I completely agree with you! These commentators here who tend to only focus on the law aspect are the ones who are VERY naive on how to make these kind of dictatirship move. They are forgetting that what these individuals move is power and money. Amal is indeed stepping outside in the perfect way. and it is working!!! Just do the math! Money is power. No money through sanctions, no power. It may not work in all cases but that is why she is doing it right because this case as with the ine in Egypt, is the only way!

Ethics, only when (very questionable) Amal-‘ethics’ suit your heroine; otherwise, an unprincipled free for all… is that it?

She misleads and misrepresents to the point it is as well she being quietly shuffled off to ‘teach’ in the quiet term, and pap walk, in NY for a bit. A wise decision by those panicked she too obviously crossed lines this time.

Hmm… Since when has it been a barrister’s job, from the comfort of her many homes in democratic western countries, to advise governments on how to fix global problems? Since when has a barrister, who has only ever studied law, even been qualified to advise nation states in this manner? If, as you say, international law cannot be enforced – the barrister has no role. They step aside.

OR, they pronounce themselves to be a modern age Ghandi. But even Ghandi had the good sense not to go about saying he was doing his campaigning in his role as a practising barrister. All I ask is that either Amal limits herself to her job, or that she openly states that since marrying a celebrity she is unable to practise as a barrister and would rather spend her time as a celebrity campaigner. I have no qualm with her campaigning on legal issues – she has the necessary background. But I have major issues with anyone who is unqualified and inexperienced, using their status to call for sanctions and boycotts against another state because they don’t share our values.

I do try to avoid commenting on these matters, but something about this recent departure really is troubling.

Dear ESR, nothing against you personally but why don’t you understand that AC has more possibilities than a barrister.
It is neither necessary to tell her what she has to do neither bash her if she acts different from what you know barrister’s work.
There are many positions beween barrister and Ghandi. 🙂
If a barrister uses mass media even in an almost global way, political networks etc. to fight for his/her clients, for human rights … so why not?
I think AC is developing her very special way concerning her work maybe as creative as she uses fashion.
She is fascinating, won’t you agree?
We will see whether AC is really dedicated. Time will show.

I like the end of the interview when she said something like to give up would be no option. She said it silently but in her eyes I saw power.
Wonderful!
Amal go!

Samba – read what I wrote carefully. I don’t care personally whether she is a barrister or not. But she continually says she is acting as one. That she is doing the same job post-marriage etc etc. There is an inherent dishonesty in presenting what she does today as the same job. It is not. She should say as much. And if she does, I will stop pointing out the discrepancies.

Didn’t her and George vacation there twice – once when they were dating and then again on their honeymoon? So much for boycotting the place. As far as the interview goes – will someone please get her to stop saying UM every 5 seconds seconds. She sounds extremely unprofessional. We have now seen her interviewed several times about this case and each time she says the same thing – I do not find her very passionate as a presenter.

According to the Cynthia McFadden piece, Amal and Jared Genser were working on this case for free. Also their pleas seem to have worked because Nasheed was at least allowed to travel to the UK for medical care.

People on this site are making assumptions based only on what is reported in the press as if it were the whole truth and on the conventional role of barristers (stuck in an office writing briefs). Maybe some of them are bitter about their own dull lives and are perhaps projecting. If you don’t like what Amal is doing, why are you even on this site?

Actually, it is only U.S. mainstream media, some Lebanese, and some British tabloids (Daily Mail) that are running pieces on Amal Clooney’s alleged role in his release. BBC News and major Indian and Sri Lankan news outlets state that Nasheed’s release for medical treatment is due to efforts by Indian, Sri Lankan, and British government officials. Nowhere do these outlets give any kind of acknowledgement of a major U.S. role in the matter, either. So, the lobbying in D.C. seems to have been not much more than a PR stunt.

I am a fan of Amal, but I don’t really like the PR campaign – it seems unprofessional and more than a bit narcissistic, to be honest. It also smacks of privilege. How many lawyers representing the underprivileged can afford the time and money to run PR campaigns for their clients?

In the U.S., depending on how much money a person wants to spend, PR companies are often hired by wealthy individuals to issue positive or image-making statements to U.S. news media outlets about their activities, and, many times, the statements are not even edited by media for accuracy (I see this with “news coverage” regarding certain public figures, including Hollywood celebrities, all the time). So, that could be the reason why the U.S. mainstream media outlets are the main news outlets perpetuating the idea that Nasheed’s release is due to Amal’s efforts (they also almost never mention Genser in these articles, or Nasheed’s own Maldivian lawyers, which is odd).

With the release of the photos of Nasheed’s arrival in the U.K. yesterday, I wondered: who called the photographers for Nasheed’s touchdown in the U.K.?

BTW, I just realized that Genser is also Managing Director of a company called Perseus Strategies, LLC, which openly states that it utilizes PR campaigns for clients. So, even though his name isn’t mentioned nearly as often by media, he may have been the one to hire the PR firm that photographed the group in D.C., when they were lobbying.

I am a new poster who has been following and enjoying this blog for some time (thank you Nati!). I am an attorney and have some conflicted views about Amal Clooney. I think she wears new and expensive outfits way too often, more than almost any other celebrity I can think of, and from a legal standpoint, many in the media have wildly exaggerated her accomplishments. However, I believe the recent posts by ESR, Jaclyn and a few others truly miss the mark. It is a lawyer’s obligation to get the best results for her client possible. Human rights cases are extremely difficult to get a positive result for the client – no matter how many times the UN or another international tribunal might say that a trial was a mockery or prejudicial, governments do not have to listen or free prisoners they have taken. Thus, PR and lobbying efforts are not only appropriate, they may, in fact, have the best chance of success in convincing a government to let a prisoner go, get medical help etc.

In this particular case, it appears that the PR campaign may have had some impact on the decision by the government of the Maldives to let ex-President Nasheed go to England for medical treatment. If so, Ms. Clooney and Mr. Genser did their jobs. They didn’t lie, cheat or steal; they simply tried to put as much pressure as possible on the government of the Maldives, and, in my opinion, calling for sanctions is just another tool in the legal toolbox. Ms. Clooney and her co-counsel were following one of the main rules of a lawyer’s code, which is to act in the best interest of their client.

THANK YOU!!! My thoughts too! I am getting tired of some comments about assumtions that she is doing illegal procedings. Most people have no clue how hard it is to make corrupt politics move. Most of the time, these pressures is the only way. She is priviledged that she has this status, so might as qwell use it to advance her cases in a positive way. Why not? it works!!

As a non lawyer I have enjoyed reading all your comments. You have definitely opened my eyes and actually made me see things from a different perspective. I am not qualified to say what is right or wrong but I do think many of your comments are valid and I would never have seen this side of the story if it were not for your enlightening posts. Thank you.👍

ESR, Jacklyn, and others who have commented about the inappropriateness of Amal on Meet the Press: It is disturbing to me that you have such a narrow understanding of the role of barrister. I encourage you to read The Bar in Society: Barristers Making a difference along with other documents. Amal’s work on social justice issues has a long history and many of her activities took place before her marriage. None of us know her so to criticize her and say she is acting as a celebrity is ridiculous. She knows as she has stated that if there is good to come from her marriage that is good but she is not choosing cases based on her marriage to George Clooney or going on Meet the Press because of this. None of us know how her going on TV was scheduled.

@Jackson
I respect your views but can you enlighten me as to what exactly encompasses Amal’s long work history of social justice issues are? You may be privy to cases that I am not.
Are they not available on the internet?

As a law student in New York City it is disappointing what a narrow view people have of lawyers’ roles. Thank you to THC and Jackson for providing alternative views. It surprises me that there is this type of feedback because of her interviews because lawyers, including my professors, give interviews all the time to national media outlets about their cases in order to rally support and bring more awareness to their causes. The range of subjects they talk about in their interviews is diverse, from LGBTQ rights to wrongful convictions to human rights in China to national security issues to technology. The Innocence Project is also another great organization that commonly gives interviews and is even getting more exposure through the now popular “Making a Murderer.” I have also interned at legal advocacy organizations where lawyers help conduct demonstrations and create PR campaigns along with their other duties. Even the corporate law people I know and am friends with give interviews about business subjects and I am fascinated by the lawyers working in startups now. I don’t see what Amal, who is fighting for her client’s interests, is doing wrong by also participating in interviews on behalf of her client and calling for reform, something that has been done by lawyers for a while now.

I’m actually grateful for her interviews because it made me research the Maldives on my own to learn about its human rights issues, issues I had not known of before because I focus on other countries and gender inequality/poverty in the United States.

I also wholeheartedly agree with THC about human rights cases in particular. My family’s background is from a country whose government is corrupted in many areas. One way to hit the government is through monetary means (targeting the assets of those responsible, for example) along with internal and external pressure through lobbying and PR campaigns.

It seems as though people are taking ESR’s comments as facts because she is a lawyer, but she is not the only lawyer in the world nor the only lawyer who leaves comments here. While that is obvious it seems as though it needs to be stated.

Nadia, •no conspiracy theory here. •And I do not know your reference “Jan321”. •everyone on this blog has the full right to express their view, insight, perspective. •Everyone agrees & disagrees on this blog as new things are released and this is great. •At the end of the day things remain the same: We all Love Amal. 🙂

H, could I please have the names of your professors, their cases,and interviews they have all sent to national media outlets? I’m very interested in watching them since you have referenced them in your post. Also, what national media outlets and sources have they gone to? All of them will surely be public accessible and I wish to view and read them. Thank you for your post. 🙂

To those commenting on what is and isn’t the role of barrister… I concede this issue is up for debate and discussion. It is a massive topic which divides the profession and I will not attempt to examine the subject in great depth here, it is not the forum. Doughty Street Chambers has a very specific line on the matter, but it is not the only view. For my part, the duty to act in a client’s best interests is subject to other duties, for instance the duty not to mislead. I consider it incredibly misleading to suggest a causal link between the release of Nasheed and a stopper on ISIS.

Yes, human rights cases are hard to win. The decks are constantly stacked against you. But that is not to say that one cannot work hard and diligently in the courts for a precedent-setting case. One example – Amal’s former colleague, Nik Grubeck, also of her year of call, is appearing in the Supreme Court in a few weeks time for the final appeal in the Serdar Mohammad litigation. The case challenges the lawfulness of Afghan detention by British troops in Afghanistan. If they win here as they have done in the courts below, it will be a major human rights and international law coup. These cases are out there. They are being fought. They are being won. But to go down the track of actually bringing and fighting such mammoth human rights cases requires the kind of work ethic which is incompatible with Amal’s lifestyle. So she has found another way of working. And that way is to use her celebrity to bring publicity to human rights abuses. In my view, it is an incredibly limited form of work. And I do believe this time she went one step too far.

I think many here have missed the point. What ESR is saying is not that publicity isn’t a part of human rights work – that’s what lots of NGOs do all the time – but that it’s not the lawyers role to attract the publicity. And to my mind since Amal married George it’s sad to say she hasn’t done much legal work. She just gets hired to bring publicity and that’s it. And ESR is suggesting that’s not the lawyers role. Which is right. And by the way, most of the attorneys on here seem to be american or from abroad. The London scene and system is different. If any of you are lawyers in London or – like me – law students in London who walk around the inns, on the occasions where Amal is mentioned it’s pretty much always as ‘Mrs. Clooney’ with a particular tone. Which is sad to hear. But tbh I think she has capitalised on her marriage and so her legal career has suffered. How is what she does different to what angelina jolie does? Except that she’s qualified?

And I agree with ESR about sanctions. Amal isn’t just doing what’s in her clients best interests. You can’t just do anything that’s in your clients best interests. It has to be ethical. I don’t think calling on sanctions or accusing regimes of encouraging terrorism without evidence is ethical. To me her language reminded me of George Bush. She’s taking these cases because she believes in them. So she’s putting forward her views. And on this occasion I completely agree that what she has said is irresponsible. I was with her completely on her egypt work and I agree with her that Nasheed needs to be freed. But I just don’t think she should have started calling for international sanctions on other states.

Maariah, thank you for this outraging comment.
I as an older Woman of 60 years was shocked when she spoke of sanctions for the Maldives and to put that State under pressure.
How many states are currently sanctioned? I do not think, that the instabile Situation of our World needs more trouble, sanctions and pressure. We all need discussions and more efforts to get pieceful results.

Thank you Maariah, 🙂 you certainly are not naive either. 🙂
And to the other 3, …. to my knowledge I have not seen floods of attorneys and barristers of all walks of life and worldwide residences jumping on MEET THE PRESS, NIGHTLINE, and NBC NEWS, and THE TODAY SHOW, If so, then they sure are lucky. No doubt they knew someone who knew someone who knew someone. NOW, that’s not to say that “local attorney’s” don’t advertise on local community TV channels. Even then, there would have to be a compelling reason for the local news station to give air time to it. Highly highly highly UNlikely that any given attorney OR professor, could just make a decision, demand, request, ask, make a motion, and choose to go on NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL television because they have strong feelings about something. Highly highly highly highly highly UNlikely. UNLESS, they have some type of pull (oh, let’s just say celebrity status by being married to a celebrity…just for the sake of example)……then, perhaps, they can easily voice whatever they wish to voice on the national media stage. Otherwise, if you aren’t Amal status, or have a story like Erin Brockovich…..believe me, you ARE NOT going to make it on The Today Show, Nightline, NBC World News, NOR Meet the Press. Extremely naive (you 3) if you think it is that easy to make this type of arrangement. NOT going to happen. ESR is NOT naive or narrow. And I can tell you 1st. hand that I am NOT naive or narrow in my vision or thoughts. Done.

ESR and Jaclyn, etc are missing the point. I don’t think Amal necessarily thinks the U.S. will put sanctions on the Maldives. She is not that naive. She is just using the attention placed on her to pressure the Maldivian govt to release her client. And guess what? It worked.

At the end of the day, things remain the same: We all Love Amal. Everyone has a right to their thoughts, views, perspectives on this blog and no one should be silenced. 🙂 We all can agree to disagree. Again, We all Love Amal. We are intrigued, fascinated, captivated, inspired, moved, and and and. But again, everyone has the right to “start a conversation”. We grow, learn, think, ponder… whether we agree OR disagree with a comment. I think it’s great to see a variety of perspectives. I am never offended by what someone writes….rather I appreciate the different angle, viewpoint, thought process. Relax, no need to get uptight or defensive. WE. ALL. LOVE. AMAL 🙂 (no one is naive, dumb, mean, narrow, or the like on this blog)
WE. ALL. LOVE. AMAL.